Well amybe next time your party can get all the crack addicted minority out of work social welfare gutter slobs off the sauce long enough to punch a card.

Bribe them w/ free hot soup and a pint of grog and youll win by eleventy billion+.

Lomax

11-03-2004, 01:32 PM

Oh, the VOTE is over...

the battle over the consequence of the vote has JUST BEGUN.

conĚcede (v.) conĚcedĚed, conĚcedĚing, conĚcedes
1. To acknowledge, often reluctantly, as being true, just, or proper; admit
2. To yield or grant (a privilege or right, for example).

memyselfI

11-03-2004, 01:32 PM

:spock:

You seen the Senate and House numbers?

Please.

This is now a one party government, for all intents and purposes. There is no ideological balance left, and any "battle" you are envisioning is insde your head...only this, and nothing more.

Again, the GOP now has an effective ideological monopoly on the government.

History, though, has shown how THAT turns out.

Look, we can go into possible irrelevence silently and passively as they (the Cons) hope we do or kicking and screaming as they would do if the tables were turned...

have you forgotten their attitudes when the tables were turned? :hmmm:

Donger

11-03-2004, 01:34 PM

Look, we can go into possible irrelevence silently and passively as they (the Cons) hope we do or kicking and screaming as they would do if the tables were turned...

Either way works for me.

memyselfI

11-03-2004, 01:34 PM

conĚcede (v.) conĚcedĚed, conĚcedĚing, conĚcedes
1. To acknowledge, often reluctantly, as being true, just, or proper; admit
2. To yield or grant (a privilege or right, for example).

DUHbya IS President. I concede that fact...

if you want to attempt to pretend he has a mandate and start trying to sell that as truth to the American public then I think you need to know there are folks who are not going to allow that to happen easily.

MadProphetMargin

11-03-2004, 01:34 PM

Look, we can go into possible irrelevence silently and passively as they (the Cons) hope we do or kicking and screaming as they would do if the tables were turned...

have you forgotten their attitudes when the tables were turned? :hmmm:

When was that? For about 1.5 years starting in 1992?

They still had the House, even then.

The cause of liberalism ain't dead, but this ain't our day. The Dems are finished, though, as a major party.

Shrieking and crying won't help.

MadProphetMargin

11-03-2004, 01:35 PM

DUHbya IS President. I concede that fact...

if you want to attempt to pretend he has a mandate and start trying to sell that as truth to the American public then I think you need to know there are folks who are not going to allow that to happen easily.

Did you see the numbers?

MANDATE. Sorry, the people have spoken.

In monosylables.

mlyonsd

11-03-2004, 01:35 PM

Look, we can go into possible irrelevence silently and passively as they (the Cons) hope we do or kicking and screaming as they would do if the tables were turned...

have you forgotten their attitudes when the tables were turned? :hmmm:

You may want to take a few night courses on finance....for when you have the option of putting some of your SS in the market. :)

It's going to be fun to torment you for a while. :Poke:

MadProphetMargin

11-03-2004, 01:36 PM

Either way works for me.

Yep. Denial won't help.

We can now sit back and enjoy an ideology that has no opposition to speak of!

Oh, JOY!

Amnorix

11-03-2004, 01:37 PM

I thought so too until I saw the Protestant and church frequency numbers.

DUHbya got out his Christian Coalition base more than Kerry got out any of his base...

*shrug* WTF difference does it make?

memyselfI

11-03-2004, 01:37 PM

When was that? For about 1.5 years starting in 1992?

They still had the House, even then.

The cause of liberalism ain't dead, but this ain't our day. The Dems are finished, though, as a major party.

Shrieking and crying won't help.

I'm not defending the 'Dems' as a party. I'm saying NOW IS NOT THE TIME to lie down and play dead...

this country needs it's opposition citizenry engaged and involved NOW MORE THAN BEFORE because it does not have power in representation iin the WH, SC, or Congress.

The Cons would love nothing more than for the Libs/left to go fetal position right now.

OldTownChief

11-03-2004, 01:37 PM

or kicking and screaming

Hillery meme Clinton

Donger

11-03-2004, 01:37 PM

I think you need to know there are folks who are not going to allow that to happen easily.

Of course there are. Bitterness and hatred are great fuels, even when the facts aren't on your side.

memyselfI

11-03-2004, 01:38 PM

*shrug* WTF difference does it make?

Because bottom line that is where this is headed...

battle of the religious right vs. the rest of us, baby.

Mr. Kotter

11-03-2004, 01:38 PM

seems to me that if there was a 'mandate' DUHbya would have won the moderates AND the conservatives in his 3+ million advantage. Kerry won them. DUHbya's turn out of conservatives was the difference.

That's a statistical illusion...only 21% identified themselves as "liberal" (that damn, "L" word.....), whereas 34% identified themselves as "conservatives." The demographic breakdowns based on ideology for both "liberal" and "conservatives" is about 30-35%--depending on definitions.

Therefore, "Liberals" are over-represented in this category CNN labels as "moderates;" it would have likely been more in line with the overall per centages had that NOT been so.

Brock

11-03-2004, 01:38 PM

I'm not defending the 'Dems' as a party. I'm saying NOW IS NOT THE TIME to lie down and play dead....

You don't understand. We didn't ask you to PLAY dead.

Donger

11-03-2004, 01:39 PM

Yep. Denial won't help.

We can now sit back and enjoy an ideology that has no opposition to speak of!

Oh, JOY!

I was referring to Denise directly, not the opposition to Bush.

Dartgod

11-03-2004, 01:39 PM

if you want to attempt to pretend he has a mandate and start trying to sell that as truth to the American public then I think you need to know there are folks who are not going to allow that to happen easily.
I fixed this part for you. See below...

...if you want to attempt to pretend he has a mandate and start trying to sell that as truth to the American public then I think you need to know there is at least one stupid b*tch who is not going to allow that to happen without throwing a f*cking hissy fit..

Donger

11-03-2004, 01:40 PM

Because bottom line that is where this is headed...

battle of the religious right vs. the rest of us, baby.

Seriously, you REALLY need to take a break.

Mr. Kotter

11-03-2004, 01:40 PM

Because bottom line that is where this is headed...

battle of the religious right vs. the rest of us, baby.

See, that's precisely the problem--you misunderstand the "battle."

It isn't the battle between the religious right and the "rest of us," it's between the Hollywood/Pop Culture/Coastal Liberals and the "rest of us."

MadProphetMargin

11-03-2004, 01:40 PM

I'm not defending the 'Dems' as a party. I'm saying NOW IS NOT THE TIME to lie down and play dead...

this country needs it's opposition citizenry engaged and involved NOW MORE THAN BEFORE because it does not have power in representation iin the WH, SC, or Congress.

The Cons would love nothing more than for the Libs/left to go fetal position right now.

I never said we should go fetal. I said that this isn't our moment. And whining about the election will ensure that our "moment" is simply that much farther off.

America hates a whiner.

Amnorix

11-03-2004, 01:41 PM

Look, we can go into possible irrelevence silently and passively as they (the Cons) hope we do or kicking and screaming as they would do if the tables were turned...

have you forgotten their attitudes when the tables were turned? :hmmm:

Losing this past election doesn't have anything to do with skulking into a corner and hiding until 4 years from now.

He won by 3%, which is a relatively healthy margin, but hardly a landslide.

MadProphetMargin

11-03-2004, 01:42 PM

See, that's precisely the problem--you misunderstand the "battle."

It isn't the battle between the religious right and the "rest of us," it's between the Hollywood/Pop Culture/Coastal Liberals and the "rest of us."

I disagree.

It is between the old Puritanical ethic vs universal tolerance.

Cotton Mather wins again.

Soupnazi

11-03-2004, 01:42 PM

DUHbya IS President. I concede that fact...

if you want to attempt to pretend he has a mandate and start trying to sell that as truth to the American public then I think you need to know there are folks who are not going to allow that to happen easily.

Have you even seen the results? He won by 3.5 Million pop votes, got more pop votes than anyone since Reagan, and did so while achieving a majority (51%) of pop votes.

Add that to the fact that the republicans took more seats in the house and senate and you have, by definition, a mandate.

Couldn't be any more clear.

However, we're still aware that you are one of the "folks who are not going to allow that to happen." Daschle's obstructionism worked well for him too.

memyselfI

11-03-2004, 01:42 PM

See, that's precisely the problem--you misunderstand the "battle."

It isn't the battle between the religious right and the "rest of us," it's between the Hollywood/Pop Culture/Coastal Liberals and the "rest of us."

Sure, for fake 'Democrats' it probably is.

OldTownChief

11-03-2004, 01:42 PM

I'm saying NOW IS NOT THE TIME to lie down and play dead...

aww poor little thing. Your soap box seems so small right now and your voice so weak. :deevee:

Amnorix

11-03-2004, 01:42 PM

See, that's precisely the problem--you misunderstand the "battle."

It isn't the battle between the religious right and the "rest of us," it's between the Hollywood/Pop Culture/Coastal Liberals and the "rest of us."

That's myopic, but suit yourself.

Honestly, though, you profess to be a Democrat. I haven't seen a single post from you that suggests support for anything "Democratic" (big "D") yet. Why do you bother. Just go change to Republican. You're not 80. You can't argue the party left you behind or something. Where you are now, the Democrats never were...

ENDelt260

11-03-2004, 01:43 PM

I fixed this part for you. See below...
ROFL

MadProphetMargin

11-03-2004, 01:43 PM

I was referring to Denise directly, not the opposition to Bush.

ROFL

WHAT opposition to Bush?

There ISN'T any. He came out of this FAR more powerful than he went in. Have you seen the Senate and House numbers?

memyselfI

11-03-2004, 01:44 PM

Losing this past election doesn't have anything to do with skulking into a corner and hiding until 4 years from now.

He won by 3%, which is a relatively healthy margin, but hardly a landslide.

Again, you are going to let a number that is comparative to the size of Chicago or LA be determined to be a 'mandate' for an ENTIRE nation????

I'm not. I think there are LARGE NUMBERS of people who will not either.

Donger

11-03-2004, 01:46 PM

ROFL

WHAT opposition to Bush?

There ISN'T any. He came out of this FAR more powerful than he went in. Have you seen the Senate and House numbers?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe the 55,000,000 folks who voted against him. I seriously doubt that they'll go quietly into the shadows. Look at the freak on this very thread.

We'll also see how supportive the Democrats in Congress are of Bush.

Donger

11-03-2004, 01:47 PM

Again, you are going to let a number that is comparative to the size of Chicago or LA be determined to be a 'mandate' for an ENTIRE nation????

I'm not. I think there are LARGE NUMBERS of people who will not either.

Are you going to define mandate or not?

Sans that, perhaps you should cease with the no 'mandate' crap.

Cochise

11-03-2004, 01:49 PM

So what's the mandate? A majority? A clear majority?

What's a clear majority? 51%? 55%?

Do you have to get a clear majority to have a mandate or can you Clinton it?

Something tells me we're never going to hear what the standard actually is.

Mr. Kotter

11-03-2004, 01:49 PM

I disagree.

It is between the old Puritanical ethic vs universal tolerance.

Cotton Mather wins again.

I'm sure that's how you view it all right; the Republican party hopes you keep believin' that too. :shake:

OldTownChief

11-03-2004, 01:50 PM

We'll also see how supportive the Democrats in Congress are of Bush.

They wont be but it wont matter.

MadProphetMargin

11-03-2004, 01:50 PM

Again, you are going to let a number that is comparative to the size of Chicago or LA be determined to be a 'mandate' for an ENTIRE nation????

I'm not. I think there are LARGE NUMBERS of people who will not either.

You DO understand the difference between a republic and a "pure" democracy, right?

MadProphetMargin

11-03-2004, 01:50 PM

They wont be but it wont matter.

EXACTLY the point I was trying to make.

Mr. Kotter

11-03-2004, 01:52 PM

That's myopic, but suit yourself.

Honestly, though, you profess to be a Democrat. I haven't seen a single post from you that suggests support for anything "Democratic" (big "D") yet. Why do you bother. Just go change to Republican. You're not 80. You can't argue the party left you behind or something. Where you are now, the Democrats never were...

Suit yourself; I voted for two Republicans yesterday.....alongside six Democrats.

I'm a blue-dog/DLC Democrat who voted for Clinton in '92.

If the party wishes to continue to ignore us, fine; we'll keep voting Democrat at the local and state level, and we'll keep sending Republicans to D.C. We'll do what we gotta do. :thumb:

Soupnazi

11-03-2004, 01:53 PM

So what's the mandate? A majority? A clear majority?

What's a clear majority? 51%? 55%?

Do you have to get a clear majority to have a mandate or can you Clinton it?

Something tells me we're never going to hear what the standard actually is.

Her mandate standard is BS, just like everything else outta her mouth.
If her guy had lost the pop vote, and won ohio, she'd be talking about the "clear choice for change" made by the public.

Earth to Denise, you got your ass kicked. Lost the EC, lost the pop vote, lost seats in both houses of congress. Maybe you should look at your own pathetic party's leadership instead of denouncing the results as a non-mandate.

Chief Henry

11-03-2004, 01:57 PM

The MANDATE was finalized as soon as THUNE stuck a FORK in DASCHLE. The Senate is now 55-44-1. Whens the last time the sitting senate minority leader was beaten ????? HMMMMMMMMM

Most votes for one person EVER for president.

MadProphetMargin

11-03-2004, 01:58 PM

The MANDATE was finalized as soon as THUNE stuck a FORK in DASCHLE. The Senate is now 55-44-1. Whens the last time the sitting senate minority leader was beaten ????? HMMMMMMMMM

Most votes for one person EVER for president.

This is a fact.

Chief Henry

11-03-2004, 01:58 PM

I beleave all 11 states with the marrige amendment
voted for President Bush too. Can you say
Moral VALUES.....HMMMMMMMM

memyselfI

11-03-2004, 01:59 PM

Are you going to define mandate or not?

Sans that, perhaps you should cease with the no 'mandate' crap.

mandate as defined as authoritative and definative vote.

Yes, DUHbya got a majority but his number was still within the MOE of the major polls that were previously considered a statisitical tie...

hardly what I consider a definative mandate. Yes, he wins the vote and yes he's the President and yes he's free to f*ck up Iraq and foreign policy for the next four years...

but he's got nearly as many people who were NOT behind him as he did who were. And given his previous 'victory' I'd be very leery of granting this president a 'mandate'.

Not to mention that

MORE PEOPLE VOTED AGAINST DUHBYA THIS ELECTION THAN FOR HIM LAST ELECTION.

MadProphetMargin

11-03-2004, 01:59 PM

I beleave all 11 states with the marrige amendment
voted for President Bush too. Can you say
Moral VALUES.....HMMMMMMMM

Yep. So much for rights being inclusive, rather than exclusive.

We never needed that silly amendment IX, anyway.

MadProphetMargin

11-03-2004, 02:00 PM

mandate as defined as authoritative and definative vote.

That's what he got.

HC_Chief

11-03-2004, 02:01 PM

More rationalization from the irrational.

Amnorix

11-03-2004, 02:01 PM

Again, you are going to let a number that is comparative to the size of Chicago or LA be determined to be a 'mandate' for an ENTIRE nation????

I'm not. I think there are LARGE NUMBERS of people who will not either.

I neither know, nor much care, what a "mandate" is. What I know is:

1. Republicans hold the WH and both chambers of Congress.

2. The President was re-elected by a bigger margin than when he was first elected, despite his highly controversial policies.

3. Republicans hold the majority of state houses.

4. Democrats apparently need to SERIOUSLY rethink their platform/agenda in order to better connect to middle America. This is like pro football -- losing by 3 points ain't no better than losing by 30, really.

5. Other than filibustering in the Senate, Democrats in Washington are pretty much powerless at this point.

Not that the pendulum won't swing the other way, especially if (as I fear) Bush continues on his path of self-destructing America's global leadership and the economic recovery stagnates. That doesn't change current reality, which is that Democrats are NOT doing what they need to do to connect iwth enough voters to win them over.

It's been 10 FUGGING YEARS since the Republicans, led by Tadpole Gingrich, swept into power on Capitol Hill. Since then, other than re-electing Clinton, the Democrats have done NOTHING. There needs to be a period of introspection and then change...

Donger

11-03-2004, 02:01 PM

mandate as defined as authoritative and definative vote.

Yes, DUHbya got a majority but his number was still within the MOE of the major polls that were previously considered a statisitical tie...

hardly what I consider a definative mandate. Yes, he wins the vote and yes he's the President and yes he's free to f*ck up Iraq and foreign policy for the next four years...

but he's got nearly as many people who were NOT behind him as he did who were. And given his previous 'victory' I'd be very leery of granting this president a 'mandate'.

So many words, and so little answer.

I don't blame you for not wanting to define it.

Mr. Kotter

11-03-2004, 02:02 PM

mandate as defined as authoritative and definative vote.

Yes, DUHbya got a majority but his number was still within the MOE of the major polls that were previously considered a statisitical tie...

hardly what I consider a definative mandate. Yes, he wins the vote and yes he's the President and yes he's free to f*ck up Iraq and foreign policy for the next four years...

but he's got nearly as many people who were NOT behind him as he did who were. And given his previous 'victory' I'd be very leery of granting this president a 'mandate'.

Out of respect, you STILL should call him "Mr. President" and you can continue to call JFK....."Senator." :)

memyselfI

11-03-2004, 02:03 PM

I neither know, nor much care, what a "mandate" is. What I know is:

1. Republicans hold the WH and both chambers of Congress.

2. The President was re-elected by a bigger margin than when he was first elected, despite his highly controversial policies.

3. Republicans hold the majority of state houses.

4. Democrats apparently need to SERIOUSLY rethink their platform/agenda in order to better connect to middle America. This is like pro football -- losing by 3 points ain't no better than losing by 30, really.

5. Other than filibustering in the Senate, Democrats in Washington are pretty much powerless at this point.

Not that the pendulum won't swing the other way, especially if (as I fear) Bush continues on his path of self-destructing America's global leadership and the economic recovery stagnates. That doesn't change current reality, which is that Democrats are NOT doing what they need to do to connect iwth enough voters to win them over.

It's been 10 FUGGING YEARS since the Republicans, led by Tadpole Gingrich, swept into power on Capitol Hill. Since then, other than re-electing Clinton, the Democrats have done NOTHING. There needs to be a period of introspection and then change...

MORE PEOPLE VOTED AGAINST DUHBYA THIS ELECTION THAN FOR HIM LAST ELECTION.

NOUN:
An authoritative command or instruction. A command or an authorization given by a political electorate to its representative. <LI type=a>A commission from the League of Nations authorizing a member nation to administer a territory. <LI type=a>A region under such administration. Law
<LI type=a>An order issued by a superior court or an official to a lower court. <LI type=a>A contract by which one party agrees to perform services for another without payment.

BIG_DADDY

11-03-2004, 02:05 PM

Kerry is a loser period.

Brock

11-03-2004, 02:05 PM

MORE PEOPLE VOTED AGAINST DUHBYA THIS ELECTION THAN FOR HIM LAST ELECTION.

Wow, that's really relevant.

Donger

11-03-2004, 02:05 PM

MORE PEOPLE VOTED AGAINST DUHBYA THIS ELECTION THAN FOR HIM LAST ELECTION.

Wow. Take some friggin Thorazine or something.

OldTownChief

11-03-2004, 02:06 PM

5. Other than filibustering in the Senate, Democrats in Washington are pretty much powerless at this point.

We shall get a crash course on this procedere when the President appoints a supreme court justice.

BIG_DADDY

11-03-2004, 02:06 PM

MORE PEOPLE VOTED AGAINST DUHBYA THIS ELECTION THAN FOR HIM LAST ELECTION.

More people voted for Dubya than any other president in the history of our country.

Chief Henry

11-03-2004, 02:06 PM

So many words, and so little answer.

I don't blame you for not wanting to define it.

She won't define it, because it goes against everything she's
ever stood for her adult life.

memyselfI

11-03-2004, 02:07 PM

Wow. Take some friggin Thorazine or something.

Truth loud and clear...

makes your 'mandate' seem less convincing...oooops.

mlyonsd

11-03-2004, 02:07 PM

MORE PEOPLE VOTED AGAINST DUHBYA THIS ELECTION THAN FOR HIM LAST ELECTION.

There's a ship leaving for Hale-Bop from Hollywood in 15 minutes.

If you hurry there might be room. Remember your Nike's.

HC_Chief

11-03-2004, 02:07 PM

Truth loud and clear...

makes your 'mandate' seem less convincing...oooops.

More like psychosis.

Woopsie.

MadProphetMargin

11-03-2004, 02:07 PM

MORE PEOPLE VOTED AGAINST DUHBYA THIS ELECTION THAN FOR HIM LAST ELECTION.

So what? More people voted, period.

His margin was 3X bigger than last time.

Amnorix

11-03-2004, 02:08 PM

Yes, DUHbya got a majority but his number was still within the MOE of the major polls that were previously considered a statisitical tie...

:spock:

MOE is "Margin of Error" and is a term used to say "well, our polling plus our models tell us that it's likely that A will get X%, and B will get Y%, but we're not really sure so the margin of error is Z.

VOTES COUNTED are votes counted.

Your statement is nonsensical.

I hear what you're saying on "no mandate", and I agree to an extent, but he still won, and he doesn't even need to worry about re-election, so all he needs to worry about is his legacy.

Other Presidents that won by the skin of their teeth have assumed full control of the office, and didn't let their margin of victory affect them or their actions at all. After all, much like in football, winning by one point is no different than winning by 30. It's still a W.

Chief Henry

11-03-2004, 02:08 PM

MORE PEOPLE VOTED AGAINST DUHBYA THIS ELECTION THAN FOR HIM LAST ELECTION.

DUHknees is in DUHnile

Donger

11-03-2004, 02:08 PM

Truth loud and clear...

makes your 'mandate' seem less convincing...oooops.

How would you know? You apparently don't even have a quantifiable definition for the word.

OldTownChief

11-03-2004, 02:08 PM

Truth loud and clear...

makes your 'mandate' seem less convincing...oooops.

Only to you my friend....ooopsy poopsy

ck_IN

11-03-2004, 02:09 PM

<i>MORE PEOPLE VOTED AGAINST DUHBYA THIS ELECTION THAN FOR HIM LAST ELECTION.</i>

And he still beat your boy by 3million+ and took over 50% which Clinton NEVER DID DO.

Amnorix

11-03-2004, 02:10 PM

We shall get a crash course on this procedere when the President appoints a supreme court justice.

You bet your ass.

He'll elevate Scalia to CJ, which will probably succeed. I hate everything Scalia does, for the most part, but there's no arguing he isn't a brilliant jurist (unlike Thomas, the class dunce).

But his first "new" justice better not be a 45 year old ultra-conservative.

Amnorix

11-03-2004, 02:11 PM

MORE PEOPLE VOTED AGAINST DUHBYA THIS ELECTION THAN FOR HIM LAST ELECTION.

WHAT THE FVCK DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

memyselfI

11-03-2004, 02:11 PM

So what? More people voted, period.

His margin was 3X bigger than last time.

Agreed. But if the guy had converted people to his way of thinking and most people wanted him to have 'mandate' type of power do you think he'd have a larger margin of voting against him this time than he does ratio of victory over his challenger????

KCTitus

11-03-2004, 02:12 PM

You bet your ass.

He'll elevate Scalia to CJ, which will probably succeed. I hate everything Scalia does, for the most part, but there's no arguing he isn't a brilliant jurist (unlike Thomas, the class dunce).

But his first "new" justice better not be a 45 year old ultra-conservative.

I would love for Bush to appoint Estrada...

memyselfI

11-03-2004, 02:12 PM

WHAT THE FVCK DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

Because the margin of victory was not large inspite of what the CONS are trying to say...

MOhillbilly

11-03-2004, 02:12 PM

ROFL

mlyonsd

11-03-2004, 02:12 PM

You bet your ass.

He'll elevate Scalia to CJ, which will probably succeed. I hate everything Scalia does, for the most part, but there's no arguing he isn't a brilliant jurist (unlike Thomas, the class dunce).

But his first "new" justice better not be a 45 year old ultra-conservative.

Would you mind giving me a refresher on what it takes to get a Justice appointed? It's been so long I've forgotten.

MadProphetMargin

11-03-2004, 02:13 PM

Agreed. But if the guy had converted people to his way of thinking and most people wanted him to have 'mandate' type of power do you he'd have a larger margin of voting against him this time than he does ratio of victory over his challenger????

Memy: You do not require a landslide to have a mandate, especially when running for a second term.

Donger

11-03-2004, 02:14 PM

Because the margin of victory was not large inspite of what the CONS are trying to say...

You don't consider 3%/3 million votes "large?"

Raiderhader

11-03-2004, 02:15 PM

Shades of the Todd Beamer thread - finding a "victory" in defeat.

memyselfI

11-03-2004, 02:15 PM

Memy: You do not require a landslide to have a mandate, especially when running for a second term.

A 'mandate' is what the people give the President and his party...

if you are cool just handing over a 'mandate' based on 3+ million margin then great...

the rest of us unwilling to say defeat means completely bending over will still carry on and maybe save your place.

ck_IN

11-03-2004, 02:16 PM

<i>But his first "new" justice better not be a 45 year old ultra-conservative.</i>

And exactly what defines an 'ultra-conservative'?

To me that's just a term that Dems float when they don't like the person in question. They don't define it. They don't quantify it. They don't justify it. They just throw it out there and wait for the media to repeat it like a mantra.

Personally I hope he nominates the most conservative judge he can find and the GOP rams it through Congress. The Ginsburg would have a nice counter weight.

Raiderhader

11-03-2004, 02:16 PM

I would love for Bush to appoint Estrada...

Wouldn't that be sweet and poetic justice....

memyselfI

11-03-2004, 02:17 PM

You don't consider 3%/3 million votes "large?"

No. I consider that actually a pretty close race. When you factor in Nader's total (and not saying they'd go Dem but just that they did not go DUHbya) then you have 49% of the population who did not support DUHbya's re-election...

that is alot of people.

Donger

11-03-2004, 02:18 PM

the rest of us unwilling to say defeat

Wow.

mlyonsd

11-03-2004, 02:18 PM

You don't consider 3%/3 million votes "large?"

I remember a certain candidate winning the popular vote by a half a million once but losing the EC and that margin seemed pretty convincing or important to some back then.

Amnorix

11-03-2004, 02:18 PM

Would you mind giving me a refresher on what it takes to get a Justice appointed? It's been so long I've forgotten.

Appointed by the President with the "advice and consent" of the Senate.

Normal process is:

1. White House submits name to Senate.

2. Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearings.

3. Candidate is rejected by committee, or else recommended by committee for approval to full Senate.

4. Senate votes up or down on the nominee.

The hearings in front of the committee have become a grueling process over the last 15 or so years.

ChiTown

11-03-2004, 02:20 PM

Because the margin of victory was not large inspite of what the CONS are trying to say...

Say it with me: It was a mandate......

Amnorix

11-03-2004, 02:20 PM

But his first "new" justice better not be a 45 year old ultra-conservative.

And exactly what defines an 'ultra-conservative'?

To me that's just a term that Dems float when they don't like the person in question. They don't define it. They don't quantify it. They don't justify it. They just throw it out there and wait for the media to repeat it like a mantra.

Personally I hope he nominates the most conservative judge he can find and the GOP rams it through Congress. The Ginsburg would have a nice counter weight.

The term is not particularly quantifiable. I'll know it when I see it.

And it's a joke for you to say that about my comments when the right chants "liberal" like it's a four letter word, and smears any Democrat they can think of with it until it sticks, or they hope it sticks.

Good luck with the "GOP ramming it through Congress". Won't happen. 45 Senators are plenty for a filibuster.

Raiderhader

11-03-2004, 02:21 PM

A 'mandate' is what the people give the President and his party...

if you are cool just handing over a 'mandate' based on 3+ million margin then great...

the rest of us unwilling to say defeat means completely bending over will still carry on and maybe save your place.

I suggest you read the entire statement you typed. The party not only holds the WH, but the senate (and actually gained seats), the House (once again gaining seats), and the govenorships (I'm not positive, but I think we gained there as well).

The entire party has been given a mandate by the majority of the people. Your party has been rejected. Deal with it or continue to deny it, as Donger said, either works for me.

ck_IN

11-03-2004, 02:21 PM

<i>No. I consider that actually a pretty close race. When you factor in Nader's total (and not saying they'd go Dem but just that they did not go DUHbya) then you have 49% of the population who did not support DUHbya's re-election...<i>

Carefull here Denise, with all that spinning I wouldn't want you to get dizzy, fall down and hurt yourself.

mlyonsd

11-03-2004, 02:21 PM

Appointed by the President with the "advice and consent" of the Senate.

Normal process is:

1. White House submits name to Senate.

2. Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearings.

3. Candidate is rejected by committee, or else recommended by committee for approval to full Senate.

4. Senate votes up or down on the nominee.

The hearings in front of the committee have become a grueling process over the last 15 or so years.

Yea but it takes more then a simple majority in the committee or in front of the full Senate to confirm doesn't it? If not it seems pretty straight forward if you control the Senate and WH.

<i>A severe mental disorder, with or without organic damage, characterized by derangement of personality and loss of contact with reality and causing deterioration of normal social functioning.</i>

Raiderhader

11-03-2004, 02:23 PM

I remember a certain candidate winning the popular vote by a half a million once but losing the EC and that margin seemed pretty convincing or important to some back then.

I remember a certain candidate who did not win 50% of the vote in either of his election bids and was said to have had a mandate.

ck_IN

11-03-2004, 02:25 PM

<i>right chants "liberal" like it's a four letter word,</i>

And if it wasn't a four letter word to the mainstream public why would it get any traction? The ultra-conservative stuff doesn't get any traction in the mainstream. It's just something the libs chant to each other and the media tries to force feed down our throats.

Velvet_Jones

11-03-2004, 02:25 PM

Face it Dunese. Kerry didn't win a damb thing. Face it and move on.

Velvet

OldTownChief

11-03-2004, 02:26 PM

Yea but it takes more then a simple majority in the committee or in front of the full Senate to confirm doesn't it? If not it seems pretty straight forward if you control the Senate and WH.

It only takes the majority of the Senate to confirm, hence the filibuster.

Cochise

11-03-2004, 02:30 PM

If liberal wasn't a four letter word to the average voter, why would Kerry never call himself that?

if it's something to be proud of, why was he running from the label the whole campaign?

MadProphetMargin

11-03-2004, 02:30 PM

The term is not particularly quantifiable. I'll know it when I see it.

And it's a joke for you to say that about my comments when the right chants "liberal" like it's a four letter word, and smears any Democrat they can think of with it until it sticks, or they hope it sticks.

Good luck with the "GOP ramming it through Congress". Won't happen. 45 Senators are plenty for a filibuster.

How many times can we filibuster?

Once? Twice?

That's just handing ammunition over to the GOP, if you plan to use it regularly.

Chief Henry

11-03-2004, 02:30 PM

the rest of us unwilling to say defeat means completely bending over will still carry on and maybe save your place.

uhhhhh, your place is with Ossama baby and his friends in Fallujah.
SO back your camels and start saving his ass and your buddies CUZ We're getting ready to play cowboys and camel jockeys very soon in Fallujah :spank:

OldTownChief

11-03-2004, 02:31 PM

How many times can we filibuster?

Once? Twice?

That's just handing ammunition over to the GOP, if you plan to use it regularly.

As far as I know a filibuster can be an ongoing thing that can't be stopped. Until one side caves in.

MarcBulger

11-03-2004, 02:32 PM

raiderhaieder you only have a mandate when the liberal press allow you too.

MadProphetMargin

11-03-2004, 02:33 PM

As far as I know a filibuster can be an ongoing thing that can't be stopped. Until one side caves in.

But how OFTEN can you do it?

You think Bush will only find ONE Bork clone to nominate?

Amnorix

11-03-2004, 02:33 PM

Yea but it takes more then a simple majority in the committee or in front of the full Senate to confirm doesn't it? If not it seems pretty straight forward if you control the Senate and WH.

Simple majority of the committee to vote up or down.

Once it goes to the full Senate, simple majority to vote up or down.

The Senate, however, has a procedural rule whereby Senators are allowed to filibuster (literally "talk to death") anything they want. In the old days, this was completely unlimited and one Senator could talk endlessly once he got the floor. There are rules about this (must be standing up, must continue talking, can't leave the Senate floor, etc.), but otherwise, it was impossible to stop him from talking.

This is what ole Strom Thurmond did with the Civil Rights Act, bringing ignominy on himself for all eternity, although he apparently mellowed out in his older years.

Anyway, a new rule was passed and now a filibuster can be choked off with 60+ votes. For good or for bad this means that 41 Senators can stop ANYTHING from getting out the door of the Senate.

Hence why 44 Democrats and 1 Independent (who always votes with the Democrats, pretty much) can prevent anyone they don't like from going to the Supreme Court. Of course, there may be political consequences for this, but that is a separate matter.

MadProphetMargin

11-03-2004, 02:34 PM

uhhhhh, your place is with Ossama baby and his friends in Fallujah.
SO back your camels and start saving his ass and your buddies CUZ We're getting ready to play cowboys and camel jockeys very soon in Fallujah :spank:

Just like Najaf and Sammara?

Amnorix

11-03-2004, 02:34 PM

But how OFTEN can you do it?

You think Bush will only find ONE Bork clone to nominate?

No limit. Whenever the hell 41 Senators agree to do it.

OldTownChief

11-03-2004, 02:34 PM

But how OFTEN can you do it?

You think Bush will only find ONE Bork clone to nominate?

Sorry, I mis-understood the question. I don't know if there is a limit, I don't think there is.

MadProphetMargin

11-03-2004, 02:34 PM

No limit. Whenever the hell 41 Senators agree to do it.

Yep. For the duration of their last terms in office.

Amnorix

11-03-2004, 02:35 PM

How many times can we filibuster?

Once? Twice?

That's just handing ammunition over to the GOP, if you plan to use it regularly.

As many times as you want, but YES, there may be political consequences next election if you don't handle it well.

The Republicans learned this when they shut down the government back in '95 or so. They took a political beating for it.

MadProphetMargin

11-03-2004, 02:35 PM

Sorry, I mis-understood the question. I don't know if there is a limit, I don't think there is.

Legally, there is no limit. Practically, there is.

Do it too often, and you aren't going back to Washington.

Cochise

11-03-2004, 02:35 PM

But how OFTEN can you do it?

You think Bush will only find ONE Bork clone to nominate?

You're going to see it on virtually everything I bet. It's just about all the Democrats have

MadProphetMargin

11-03-2004, 02:37 PM

You're going to see it on virtually everything I bet. It's just about all the Democrats have

Naw. The Dems are as aware as are we that this would mean the IMMEDIATE death of the party..."immediate" being defined as 2006.

OldTownChief

11-03-2004, 02:41 PM

Naw. The Dems are as aware as are we that this would mean the IMMEDIATE death of the party..."immediate" being defined as 2006.

I think after the first one there will not be a lot of dems stepping up to the plate to spark a debate on the second one, it would be political suicide.

ChiTown

11-03-2004, 02:46 PM

This is hilarious......

The reason they lost

1. Moving polling places

2. Polling machines were faulty

3. Line were too long

4. Intimidation....etc. etc.

This gal is losing it ROFL

Amnorix

11-03-2004, 02:46 PM

You're going to see it on virtually everything I bet. It's just about all the Democrats have

Can't, unless they want to get swept out of office altogether. The American public won't put up with obstructionist legislators (unless they're Jesse Helms and their constituents believe that no government is better than just about any government, but that's not the Democrats' constituency, is it?)

MadProphetMargin

11-03-2004, 02:48 PM

This is hilarious......

The reason they lost

1. Moving polling places

2. Polling machines were faulty

3. Line were too long

4. Intimidation....etc. etc.

This gal is losing it ROFL

The Dems lost because more people voted for Bush.

Did I mention that the Dems are finished?

This whimpering just pounds more nails in the coffin.

memyselfI

11-03-2004, 02:49 PM

I remember a certain candidate who did not win 50% of the vote in either of his election bids and was said to have had a mandate.

Not by me. I won't use that term to apply to the entire electorate until the turnout is significantly over 50% of the eligible voters.

KCWolfman

11-03-2004, 02:50 PM

Hmm, nothing in Websters about Moderates in the definition of Mandate.

However, you should look up Bitter, Confused, Angry, and Harpy.

MadProphetMargin

11-03-2004, 02:50 PM

Hmm, nothing in Websters about Moderates in the definition of Mandate.

However, you should look up Bitter, Confused, Angry, and Harpy.

Or just "denial".

KCWolfman

11-03-2004, 02:52 PM

Or just "denial".
Oh we can add Denial, Jealous, Crybaby, Rationalize, Hateful, Blind, and a host of other words as well.

OldTownChief

11-03-2004, 02:53 PM

Not by me. I won't use that term to apply to the entire electorate until the turnout is significantly over 50% of the eligible voters.

Denise slowly step back and wind down out of campaign mode before you vapor lock or blow a lung, the election is over now Bush has a mandate and Kerry has conceded.

MadProphetMargin

11-03-2004, 02:54 PM

Not by me. I won't use that term to apply to the entire electorate until the turnout is significantly over 50% of the eligible voters.

Not voting is a choice.

Give it up.

memyselfI

11-03-2004, 02:55 PM

Hmm, nothing in Websters about Moderates in the definition of Mandate.

However, you should look up Bitter, Confused, Angry, and Harpy.

Back so soon?

I'm not angry about the election. DUHbya won this one fair and square. I knew he'd win it...I thought it would be with shenanigans and apparently it wasn't.

If I'm angry it's about his record during the previous four years.

Forgive me if I'm unwilling to give DUHbya a 'mandate' for his victory which is on the LOW end of the margins won by previous incumbents even considering his 'record' vote total.

Cochise

11-03-2004, 02:55 PM

Not by me. I won't use that term to apply to the entire electorate until the turnout is significantly over 50% of the eligible voters.

ROFL oh bull-Raiders

You expect us to believe that you never thought Clinton had a mandate huh?

You really are losing it. Please put away the sharp objects.

memyselfI

11-03-2004, 02:56 PM

Not voting is a choice.

Give it up.

So is handing over the keys to driving a further gulf in a cultural divide...

you'll see.

MadProphetMargin

11-03-2004, 02:57 PM

ROFL oh bull-Raiders

You expect us to believe that you never thought Clinton had a mandate huh?

You really are losing it. Please put away the sharp objects.

Whattaya mean "You PEOPLE"?

Not everyone here is shrieking. Bush won, the people have spoken.

That's all there is too it.

KCWolfman

11-03-2004, 02:57 PM

Back so soon?

I'm not angry about the election. DUHbya won this one fair and square. I knew he'd win it...I thought it would be with shenanigans and apparently it wasn't.

If I'm angry it's about his record during the previous four years.

Forgive me if I'm unwilling to give DUHbya a 'mandate' for his victory which is on the LOW end of the margins won by previous incumbents even considering his 'record' vote total.
You knew he would win? You mean you posted sometimes that he would win and posted other times that Kerre' could win.

Your flip flops just didn't pan out. How did the senate race in your state go?

MadProphetMargin

11-03-2004, 02:58 PM

So is handing over the keys to driving a further gulf in a cultural divide...

Yes, based on their FALSE perception of a 'mandate' given to them 'by the American people.'

Dickhead Cheney already used the word...

Kerry's not even cold yet. ;)

KCWolfman

11-03-2004, 03:01 PM

Yes, based on their FALSE perception of a 'mandate' given to them 'by the American people.'

Dickhead Cheney already used the word...

Kerry's not even cold yet. ;)
The margin of victory dictates how you should govern?

You are whacked. This is great, the only thing I am missing is popcorn and a barka lounger.

MadProphetMargin

11-03-2004, 03:03 PM

Yes, based on their FALSE perception of a 'mandate' given to them 'by the American people.'

Dickhead Cheney already used the word...

Kerry's not even cold yet. ;)

Like it or not, they have all the mandate they need.

Hey, look...I just defined "mandate", didn't I?

The American public has given Bush the power to pursue his agenda.

THAT'S a freakin' mandate.

Soupnazi

11-03-2004, 03:05 PM

Yes, based on their FALSE perception of a 'mandate' given to them 'by the American people.'

Dickhead Cheney already used the word...

Kerry's not even cold yet. ;)

Yeah, Chris Matthews used it earlier this morning in discussing the results. He said that Bush now had a "Mandate." I guess he's just a republican hack, though.

Kerry may not be cold yet, but that didn't stop your party from using Christopher Reeve. ROFL

Cochise

11-03-2004, 03:07 PM

why in the world would I believe he had a mandate for the ENTIRE country?

Because it doesn't serve your purpose now.

But I'm betting that back in '92 you didnt hope Clinton would govern from the center, like a guy who didn't have a mandate.

So easy to play revisionist when the threads aren't around.

KCWolfman

11-03-2004, 03:08 PM

Yeah, Chris Matthews used it earlier this morning in discussing the results. He said that Bush now had a "Mandate." I guess he's just a republican hack, though.

Kerry may not be cold yet, but that didn't stop your party from using Christopher Reeve. ROFL
That's not funny, thanks to Republicans and the failure of higher brain function, Christopher Reeves will never walk again. Due to our callous nature, the John John's will no longer have the power to touch and heal.

OldTownChief

11-03-2004, 03:09 PM

Forgive me if I'm unwilling to give DUHbya a 'mandate'

FWIW your forgivin, but like I said in another post. Your voice is weak and meaningless now. Let me know the first time the Senate calls you and ask your advice on the next vote.

Donger

11-03-2004, 03:54 PM

Not by me. I won't use that term to apply to the entire electorate until the turnout is significantly over 50% of the eligible voters.

Ooops! Looks like even you have to agree it was a mandate, per above...

"However, about 120 million people cast ballots, including 5.5 million to 6 million absentee and provisional ballots yet to be counted, said Curtis Gans, director of the nonpartisan Committee for the Study of the American Electorate.

The 120 million figure represents just under 60 percent of eligible voters -- the highest percentage turnout since 1968, Gans said. (Voters turn out to beat the rush)"

BIG_DADDY

11-03-2004, 04:00 PM

I wish I had loser bumper stickers to go put on every Kerry sign left up on our block.

Chief Henry

11-03-2004, 04:04 PM

I wish I had loser bumper stickers to go put on every Kerry sign left up on our block.

:hmmm: i like it

Raiderhader

11-03-2004, 04:05 PM

Not by me. I won't use that term to apply to the entire electorate until the turnout is significantly over 50% of the eligible voters.

Where did I say you did? Where did I even slightly, round aboutly, suggest that you did?

This is an awful out of the blue and defensive post.....

Taco John

11-03-2004, 04:09 PM

I don't know how anyone could argue that Bush doesn't have a mandate... He is the most popularly voted president in American history. If that's not a mandate, I don't know what is.

MadProphetMargin

11-03-2004, 04:10 PM

I don't know how anyone could argue that Bush doesn't have a mandate... He is the most popularly voted president in American history. If that's not a mandate, I don't know what is.

Actually, FDR whupped Alf Landon far worse than this.

Nixon vs McGovern, as well.

Taco John

11-03-2004, 04:12 PM

I'm not talking about margin of victory. I'm talking total turnout.

You can't shake a stick at Kerry's turnout to be sure... But I find it difficult to believe this idea that Bush has no mandate.

Raiderhader

11-03-2004, 04:20 PM

Another thought on the subject of the thread....

According to this the COMBINATION of moderates and liberals was not enough to overcome the conservative base. If you take away the moderates, the left shrinks in voting power.

This is still a conservative nation at heart. As long as those we have entrusted with power don't screw things up, the left is f#cked.

Taco John

11-03-2004, 04:24 PM

As long as those we have entrusted with power don't screw things up, the left is f#cked.

There is a difference between running things imperfectly and f#cking them up. If the Republicans take advantage of this opportunity to bring about true conservative ideals and decrese the role of government, they have they have less things they can meddle with and f#ck up.

It's up in the air as of now, but I tend to lean towards the optimistic.

MadProphetMargin

11-03-2004, 05:04 PM

There is a difference between running things imperfectly and f#cking them up. If the Republicans take advantage of this opportunity to bring about true conservative ideals and decrese the role of government, they have they have less things they can meddle with and f#ck up.

It's up in the air as of now, but I tend to lean towards the optimistic.

Bush has presided over the largest deficits in American history, and he has increased the size of the federal government by 1/3, in 4 years.

Keep dreaming.

Baby Lee

11-03-2004, 05:36 PM

I wish I had loser bumper stickers to go put on every Kerry sign left up on our block.
My neighbor removed all his Kerry signs, and the bumper sticker on his car by noon. Kind of felt bad for him, he's just an idealistic young college student still livin' off the 'rents and student loans.

BIG_DADDY

11-03-2004, 05:45 PM

My neighbor removed all his Kerry signs, and the bumper sticker on his car by noon. Kind of felt bad for him, he's just an idealistic young college student still livin' off the 'rents and student loans.

He will smarten up eventually.

Raiderhader

11-03-2004, 06:05 PM

Bush has presided over the largest deficits in American history, and he has increased the size of the federal government by 1/3, in 4 years.

Keep dreaming.

Yes, but you have to take into account the situation he found himself in.

This time around he has a mandate (and no accusations of being an illigitimate President) and a majority in the senate. The country is not as divided as it was coming off the 2000 election. We really don't know what to expect at this point and time. Could be the same, could be different. Only time will tell.

OldTownChief

11-03-2004, 06:12 PM

Bush has presided over the largest deficits in American history, and he has increased the size of the federal government by 1/3, in 4 years.

Keep dreaming.

After reading a lot of your post you seem like a sensible person and you have to know that is not really a fair statement.

Inspector

11-03-2004, 06:32 PM

Wow.

So D enise is a sore loser, huh?

Who woulda thunk it??

Give it up girl. My candidate lost too, but hey it could be worse - your candidate could have won (still sends shivers......)

Rausch

11-03-2004, 06:36 PM

Wow.

So D enise is a sore loser, huh?

Who woulda thunk it??

Give it up girl. My candidate lost too, but hey it could be worse - your candidate could have won (still sends shivers......)

I guess if one side can claim a 'mandate' so too can the other. :hmmm:

ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

Oh - MY - GOD! I have read ALOT of stupid shit on this board, and a whole lot of it has come from Denise. But this is, with out any question what so ever, the most ridiculous thing I have read on this board. The LOSERS get to claim a mandate? And the Panthers get to share the Lombardi trophy with the Patriots because they made it a close game.

Denise, it is people like you who are dooming your party, and I take full enjoyment in the fact that you will refuse this notion and continue to drive nails into the coffin.

Chief Henry

11-04-2004, 10:27 AM

Wow, it turns out that not only did DUHbya get record numbers...

but record numbers went against him too.

I guess if one side can claim a 'mandate' so too can the other. :hmmm:

DUHknees was silver and black, now she's just green and moldy. Someone needs to send her some masengil !!!